What is the future of Foxpro? 
Author Message
 What is the future of Foxpro?

I am a programme who start to write xbase from dBase II and then dBase
III, dBase IV and Clipper. My last xbase is Foxpro. I always want to
know what will be the future of Foxpro. Will she be same as Clipper or
dBase? Now my company want to employ a language to write a client/server
programme base on SQL server. Does Foxpro is my good choice? Could you
give me some advise to choose which language to develop a well
client/server application other that Foxpro? I hope this programme can
support the following points:

Support any kind of SQL server, include the SQL server on UNIX.
Support Internet access. (Can work on a Browser through Internet).
Close to xBase Language.

Thanks a lot.

Alan Po



Mon, 28 Aug 2000 03:00:00 GMT  
 What is the future of Foxpro?

I'm working on a sizable project for a reputable client using FoxPro as a
front end for a SQL Server back end.  Although it's not the first choice of
my co-workers, it *is* working.  One really nice thing about using FoxPro
for a front end is you can make use of FoxPro's native database engine as
well, which is nice for frequently accessed data such as code lookups, user
preference data, etc, etc.  Using FoxPro data access for these things can
cut down on your transmissions to and from your back-end, which can only
help you in the long run.  My co-workers main preferences are PowerBuilder
(1st) and Visual Basic (2nd) for front end tools.  I don't have much
experience with those tools to say, but my firm is very big on them.



Quote:

> Alan, I think FoxPro is an excellent choice for client/server.
Microsoft's
> support for the product is evident in that Microsoft is now including it
as
> part of the Visual Developer's suite.  The newest release of FoxPro
already
> supports all of the requirements you have for a client/server development
> tool, so I'd see little reason to change.

> If you absolutely insist on changing tools, I'd look into Delphi 3 if I
were
> you.  It's not close to xBase (it's based on the Pascal language), but
fits
> all of your other requirements.



Mon, 28 Aug 2000 03:00:00 GMT  
 What is the future of Foxpro?

Quote:
> If you absolutely insist on changing tools, I'd look into Delphi 3 if I were
> you.  It's not close to xBase (it's based on the Pascal language), but fits
> all of your other requirements.

> Cheers,
> -- Dave

When I evaluated other client server languages I decided on Powerbuilder
because its datawindow was practically identical to the report builder
in foxpro in look and feel.

but I'm not knocking Foxpro



Mon, 28 Aug 2000 03:00:00 GMT  
 What is the future of Foxpro?

another vote for delphi 3 here.  i'm now moving alot of my code there.
i like that i can build a quick EXE here and there also.  there are
also foxpro libraries available.  borland's database engine can also
do foxpro but they add overhead with the runtime libraries.  although
they're not as big as foxpro's.



Quote:
>> If you absolutely insist on changing tools, I'd look into Delphi 3 if I were
>> you.  It's not close to xBase (it's based on the Pascal language), but fits
>> all of your other requirements.

>> Cheers,
>> -- Dave

>When I evaluated other client server languages I decided on Powerbuilder
>because its datawindow was practically identical to the report builder
>in foxpro in look and feel.

>but I'm not knocking Foxpro

----------------------=>)FNKSHN FOR FOXPRO 2.X(<=-------------------------
Try out the Top Ten Downloaded* FNKSHN library written by Perry Fect
And did I also mention that it's *FREE*!?!?
http://w3.nai.net/~perfecto/fnkshn.html
Coming Soon: FNKSHN 1.2 The Final FNKSHN library for 2.x
             ObjectSHN 1.2 The Object-Oriented version of FNKSHN
----------------------=>)FNKSHN FOR FOXPRO 2.X(<=-------------------------
* FNKSHN made the Top Ten Downloads list on the Visual FoxPro Yellow Pages


Mon, 28 Aug 2000 03:00:00 GMT  
 What is the future of Foxpro?

I've heard similarly about SQL Anywhere... we were evaluating a package
that uses SQL Anywhere as a backend and when the project lead called
someone back at our office if SQL Anywhere will work for about 85 users,
got a scream at the other end of the phone. =)

The only problem I have with 5.0's DBC which I still have had trouble
working around, is that some funny things happen with the database
properties.   I didn't have much trouble with Stored Procedures, however,
they worked very well for me.  I've been experimenting with using the Fox
DBC as a database for some time now.  Are there any good sources of
information on DBC gotchas and benefits out there?



Quote:
> Speaking of performance, I recently needed to connect to an SQL Anywhere
> database via ODBC from FoxPro.     The performance of SQL Anywhere (even
using
> Sybase's own front end) was SO incredibly bad that we moved the entire
> database to FoxPro 5...(by including the tables in a DBC we were able to
keep
> the long filenames and reproduce stored procedures).  The performance of
Fox
> was roughly 400 times better.



Wed, 30 Aug 2000 03:00:00 GMT  
 What is the future of Foxpro?


Quote:
> When I evaluated other client server languages I decided on Powerbuilder
> because its datawindow was practically identical to the report builder
> in foxpro in look and feel.

> but I'm not knocking Foxpro

After many years on Foxpro DOS I have been working on Delphi and
evaluating Visual Foxpro 5 and Powerbuilder. So far I think Delphi and
Visual Foxpro are better choices than Powerbuilder. I was also
surpised recently to discover PowerBuilder doesn't have Exception
handling except for system errors.

...commenting on the original question... I think the primary reason
MS has not killed Fox is that there are still lots of companies (some
of them of considerable size) using Foxpro/Visual. It is a lot
easier/cheaper for a company to go from Foxpro to Visual than to go to
something else.



Thu, 31 Aug 2000 03:00:00 GMT  
 What is the future of Foxpro?


says...

Quote:
> > ...commenting on the original question... I think the primary reason
> > MS has not killed Fox is that there are still lots of companies (some
> > of them of considerable size) using Foxpro/Visual. It is a lot
> > easier/cheaper for a company to go from Foxpro to Visual than to go to
> > something else.

> Hmm.  Don't forget that the performance of Fox is an order of magnitude
> better than Access.  That probably has something to do with it.

So why have they kept Access then?
I don't think it is a technical issue. All I have read is how Foxpro
is better than Access (never tried myself...). Any features Access
had/has that Fox didn't/doesn't could have been brought over and be
done with Access. Why do they bother to have two set of technologies?
I think the answers must be on the business side and not on the
technical side. Technically it makes more sense to can one of the two
and take the best features of each.


Fri, 01 Sep 2000 03:00:00 GMT  
 What is the future of Foxpro?

Quote:


>says...
>> > ...commenting on the original question... I think the primary reason
>> > MS has not killed Fox is that there are still lots of companies (some
>> > of them of considerable size) using Foxpro/Visual. It is a lot
>> > easier/cheaper for a company to go from Foxpro to Visual than to go to
>> > something else.

>> Hmm.  Don't forget that the performance of Fox is an order of magnitude
>> better than Access.  That probably has something to do with it.

>So why have they kept Access then?
>I don't think it is a technical issue. All I have read is how Foxpro

     I think it is.  I don't use Access myself, but I understand that
it is an end user tool.  It has stuff that make it simple to get a
simple database up.  It does not have the features needed for more
involved DB work.  VFP is the opposite.

Quote:
>is better than Access (never tried myself...). Any features Access
>had/has that Fox didn't/doesn't could have been brought over and be
>done with Access. Why do they bother to have two set of technologies?
>I think the answers must be on the business side and not on the
>technical side. Technically it makes more sense to can one of the two
>and take the best features of each.

     No, it doesn't.  Access is an end user tool.  VFP is for
professional programmers.  Why confuse the end users with
unnecessary-to-them contructs?  Why hobble programmers with end user
stuff?

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

C Pronunciation Guide:
     y=x++;     "wye equals ex plus plus semicolon"
     x=x++;     "ex equals ex doublecross semicolon"



Sat, 02 Sep 2000 03:00:00 GMT  
 What is the future of Foxpro?

Francisco,
I think MS Works vs. MS Office says that MS believes in supporting different
markets to maximize their profits. As you imply, technology doesn't rule.
Rick

<snip>

Quote:
>Why do they bother to have two set of technologies?
>I think the answers must be on the business side and not on the
>technical side. Technically it makes more sense to can one of the two
>and take the best features of each.



Sat, 02 Sep 2000 03:00:00 GMT  
 What is the future of Foxpro?

MS had been working on Access long before it purchased Fox.  Access 1.0 came
out wothin a couple of months as FPW 2.5.  It was a Windows program, FPW was a
port from DOS to work in Windows.  When FPW 2.6 came out it was a minimal
upgrade whereas Access 2.0 was still a Windows program.  When Access 95 came
out, FoxPro was finally a Windows program with VFP3.  By that time Access was
an integrated part of MS Office though to purchase it you had to get the
professional version of Office or by it as a standalone.  Many computer
systems, such as Gateway, bundled the professional version of Office with each
new computer.  Foxpro has never been bundled with new computers.  The glue
that ties Office together is VBA, a subset of VB, which Access uses.   I'd
suggest there are just as many, if not more, VB programmers than Fox
programmers.  If you include Access programmers, then you have a larger VB/A
talent pool.   Also, there is predudice; Bill Gates is a Basic power
programmer, correct me if I'm wrong.  Because of VBA, Office integration, and
bundling, and an original in-house vs purchased product that has always been a
Windows program Access is now entrenched into the marketplace.  And it has
been improved over the years so that it now handles 1 gig databases.  It is
not suitable for thousands of folks doing DE at the same time, the maximum in
Access 97 is 250 concurrent users, and it is slower than FoxPro, but as one
person recently wrote in Computerworld "Forget the tricks.  Get your
performance from cheap hardware and your business value from clean,
maintainable code."

Is it an end user tool?.  Probably.  It requires less knowledge to put
together DE screens than VFP.  But professional programmers can go wild with
it, too many have to ignore it.  If you revel in Inner/Left/Right joins it's
got those features, a more powerful report writer than FP ever did, and you
should be able to create an application fast.

So that is why I believe Access is still around.  I kinda view Access as a
departamental tool and FP as an enterprise tool.

Quote:

> So why have they kept Access then?
> I don't think it is a technical issue. All I have read is how Foxpro
> is better than Access (never tried myself...). Any features Access
> had/has that Fox didn't/doesn't could have been brought over and be
> done with Access. Why do they bother to have two set of technologies?
> I think the answers must be on the business side and not on the
> technical side. Technically it makes more sense to can one of the two
> and take the best features of each.



Sat, 02 Sep 2000 03:00:00 GMT  
 What is the future of Foxpro?

MS is slowly positioning Fox as middleware in a 3-tier client/server world
within the Visual Studio framework.  Fox can support business rules and data
access, VB supplies the front-end, and SQL-Server supplies the back-end
database.  This will become REALLY apparent when SQL-Server 7 (Sphinx) and
Visual Fox 6 (Tahoe) are unveiled in a few months.



Sat, 02 Sep 2000 03:00:00 GMT  
 
 [ 22 post ]  Go to page: [1] [2]

 Relevant Pages 

1. Future of Foxpro, Foxpro vs PowerBuilder, Visual Basic??

2. Future of FoxPro

3. foxpro's future?

4. Future of FoxPro?

5. Future of Visual FoxPro ??

6. The future of Foxpro

7. The future of Foxpro

8. The future of Foxpro

9. The Future of Foxpro

10. foxpro's future?

11. If you care about the future of Foxpro ...

12. future of mac foxpro

 

 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software